May 14, 1999, updated from April 26 edition: If TV anchors
regularly suggest viewers should worry about everyday threats like
spoiled hamburgers or "monster" sport utility vehicles, why can’t they
report on the threat posed by the Chinese theft of secrets that may
make their nuclear missiles arrive with better aim and increased
deadliness? The nation’s most prestigious newspapers have published
scoop after scoop detailing the connections between Chinese
contributions and espionage efforts, and ABC, CBS and NBC have aired
next to nothing about them on their morning and evening shows. The
Media Research Center found the networks’ shocking pattern of
non-coverage in four areas:

1. China’s Army Funds the Democrats. On April 4, the Asian fundraising scandal culminated in a Los Angeles Times
report: Johnny Chung told Justice Dept. investigators that the chief of
Chinese military intelligence gave him $300,000 to donate to the
Clinton campaign. None of the broadcast networks touched this bombshell
until Chung appeared before Congress on May 11, but even then the ABC
and NBC morning shows and the CBS Evening News ignored him.

2. China Acquires U.S. Missile Technology. Beginning in April 1998, The New York Times
reported the Chinese government had been given technological expertise
that "significantly advanced Beijing’s ballistic missile program," and
the head of one of the offending defense contractors was the largest
individual contributor to Democrats in 1996. The number of evening news
reports on this story since April 1998? ABC: 7. CBS: 3. NBC: 2. ABC
outnumbered these 12 pieces in a 24-hour period highlighting their
Monica Lewinsky interview.

3. China Acquires U.S. Warhead Technology. One year after that discovery, The New York Times
found that the Chinese government had stolen technology from U.S.
nuclear labs that would help them miniaturize their nuclear warheads.
In the first ten days the Big Three aired only 11 evening stories and
six morning stories, then dropped the issue. The networks have since
ignored several significant revelations and conducted only one morning
show interview.

4. Clinton’s Denials Exposed. When pressed by print
reports about whether he knew Chinese espionage was occurring on his
watch, President Clinton claimed in two press conferences that he was
told nothing about espionage occurring during his term. When new print
reports revealed him to be lying, the networks again refused to give
viewers the evidence.

The MRC report concludes by noting this blackout would seem less
irresponsible and unfair if the networks hadn’t doggedly pursued GOP
foreign-policy scandals from Iran-Contra to Iraqgate, and recommends
the networks pursue this story not simply to compare Clinton’s record
to other Presidents, but to his own promises in his 1992 manifesto Putting People First.

Would any network executive dare to suggest that improved Chinese
missiles are somehow not as threatening to the public as the
"news-about-you" nightmares they present on a regular basis? Their lack
of coverage would seem to say so. The nation’s most prestigious
newspapers — the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times
— have published scoop after scoop detailing the connections between
Chinese contributions and espionage efforts. But the ABC, CBS, and NBC
morning and evening shows have aired next to nothing of these reports.
(CNN and FNC did cover many of these disclosures, but we’ve targeted
the Big Three newscasts.) The CBS Evening News, it should be noted, has run two exclusive pieces in the past month about security lapses at the nuclear labs and Energy Dept.

While network reporters crusade against tobacco companies and SUV
salesmen, malignant meat-grinders and disgruntled drivers, couldn’t
they add to their list of people to hold accountable the foreign-policy
experts and politicians who have allowed a potentially life-threatening
erosion of our strategic advantage? With the end of the Cold War,
the networks seem to have abandoned the idea of covering threats to
America’s national security. After years of Democratic foot-dragging,
Congress recently held a surprising bipartisan vote to build a
strategic missile defense. But the networks did not explain what caused
this stunning policy shift: reports of Chinese espionage inside the
United States. Republicans and Democrats agree the communist government
of China has made leaps and bounds in developing more sophisticated
missile-guidance systems to improve their aim, and miniaturized
multiple warheads to increase their deadliness.

Network apathy on Chinese espionage would seem less irresponsible
and less unfair if the networks hadn’t doggedly pursued foreign-policy
scandals during Republican presidencies with a curiously partisan sense
of geopolitics. What the President knew and when he knew it was an
absolutely central tenet of the Iran-Contra story. Why are the same
networks now so uninterested in Clinton’s knowledge of Chinese
espionage? These new disturbing discoveries and their lack of TV
coverage can be broken down into four subject areas:

1. China's Army Funds the Democrats

When the Asian fundraising scandal story first gained traction in an October 8, 1996 Wall Street Journal
article on the then-unknown John Huang, the primary concern was the
acceptance of illegal foreign contributions. Strategic questions were
very slow to surface. When Fred Thompson’s Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee took up the matter in the summer of 1997, network coverage
focused on alleged foreign contributions to both parties.

When Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour appeared
before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee to address Hong
Kong-connected contributions to an RNC think tank, the networks
provided their fullest day of hearings coverage that month, with the
exception of the opening day. But when Democratic National Committee
Chairman Don Fowler appeared on September 9 to answer questions about
his favors for foreign donors, the networks blacked it out.

Sen. Thompson’s opening statement noting intelligence reports
suggested the Chinese government had attempted to influence the 1996
elections was presented as a blunder throughout the hearings. On
September 9, the night they ignored Fowler, ABC’s Linda Douglass noted:
"Senator Thompson is clearly tired of taking a beating from the
Democrats, who every single day point out the fact that he’s failed to
prove there is any Chinese plot in connection with the Democratic
presidential campaign." Where were they when proof arrived?

• May 15, 1998: Chung’s Chinese Summer. The New York Times
reported Johnny Chung told investigators that a large part of the
almost $100,000 he gave Democrats in the summer of 1996 came from Liu
Chaoying, who works on defense modernization for China’s People’s
Liberation Army. Two days later, the Sunday Times added that Clinton
overrode then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher’s decision to limit
China’s ability to launch American-made satellites on Chinese rockets.

Network coverage? Would the networks who dismissed Thompson
make up for lost ground? In the midst of heavy coverage of Frank
Sinatra’s death, ABC devoted 75 seconds to the story, CBS 27, and NBC
15. After Sunday’s disclosures, ABC reported one story, but CBS and NBC
ignored it. From May 15 to June 5, 1998, the network evening shows
offered 15 full stories (featuring reporters in the field) on
Chinagate, but 38 full stories on the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In the
same time period, the network morning shows aired 40 Monica stories to
only six on the China scandal. In three weeks, CBS and NBC each aired
only one morning report on the fundraising revelations.

• April 4, 1999: Chung’s $300,000 Link to the Top. The Los Angeles Times
published an Easter bombshell. "The chief of China’s military
intelligence secretly directed funds from Beijing to help re-elect
President Clinton in 1996, former Democratic fundraiser Johnny Chung
has told federal investigators." Reporters William Rempel, Henry
Weinstein, and Alan Miller reported: "Chung says he met three times
with the intelligence official, Gen. Ji Shengde, who ordered $300,000
deposited into the Torrance businessman’s bank account to subsidize
campaign donations intended for Clinton."

Did the government believe Chung’s testimony was credible? The Times
also revealed the FBI monitored groups of Chinese visitors in
California regarded as a possible hit squad: "more than 40 agents were
assigned to guard Chung, his wife and three children for three weeks."

Network coverage? Nothing on any Big Three morning or evening
show until Chung testified five weeks later, on May 11, before the
House Government Reform Committee. In the days after the Los Angeles Times
disclosure, none of these details, or the subsequent press conference
and state dinner with Chinese premier Zhu Rongji later in the week,
spurred interest. ABC’s Sam Donaldson got closest to touching the
revelations five days later, reporting without even a raised eyebrow
that Zhu "said he had no knowledge that the Chinese government had
contributed money to Mr. Clinton’s 1996 campaign."

The day Chung testified over a month later, on CBS’s This Morning,
reporter Bill Plante briefly previewed Chung’s appearance, but that
night the CBS Evening News failed to tell viewers about his testimony.

ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News
aired reports on May 11 about Chung’s testimony, but neither mentioned
the threats on his life from Chinese officials which he recounted
before the House committee. The next morning: Not a word about Chung on
ABC’s Good Morning America, CBS’s This Morning or NBC’s Today. Bottom line: No coverage yet on the CBS Evening News, ABC’s Good Morning America or NBC’s Today for the head of Chinese military intelligence giving Chung $300,000 to funnel to the DNC and Clinton re-election campaign.

• May 7, 1999: Chung’s Claims for Congress. The Los Angeles Times
reported a preliminary outline of what Johnny Chung would tell the
House Government Reform panel about his knowledge of the Chinese
attempts to influence U.S. policy through contributions:

First, "He was told by an associate of Beijing’s military
intelligence leader that China had funneled $500,000 to an
international trading firm established by a former Clinton White House
aide." Second, "A Beijing banker told Chung that a former Arkansas
restaurateur who was a longtime friend of President Clinton approached
the Chinese government sometime prior to February 1996 asking for $1
million to help support Clinton and the Democratic Party." Third,
"Chung escorted the wife and son of the Chinese military intelligence
chief to a political fundraiser in Los Angeles in 1996 at which
Democratic officials insisted on a $25,000 campaign contribution for
the opportunity to introduce his guests to the President."

Network coverage? Zero.

2. China Acquires U.S. Military Technology

Policy toward China may have been affected not just by Chinese
donations, but by donations from Americans with business in China. But
the nexus between campaign cash and policy actions rarely became a
question on the broadcast networks. Since April 1998, the total network
evening show coverage of Missilegate? ABC: 7. CBS: 3. NBC: 2. ABC
outnumbered these 12 stories alone in one day of promoting their Monica
Lewinsky interview. Take these examples of ignored newspaper
discoveries:

• April 4, 1998: Loral’s Loose Lips. New York Times
reporters Jeff Gerth and Raymond Bonner reported, "A federal grand jury
is investigating whether two American companies illegally gave China
space expertise that significantly advanced Beijing’s ballistic missile
program, according to administration officials. But the officials said
the criminal inquiry was dealt a serious blow two months ago when
President Clinton quietly approved the export to China of similar
technology by one of the companies under investigation." The Times
noted that company, Loral, has a chairman, Bernard Schwartz, who was
the largest individual contributor to the Democratic National Committee
in 1996.

Network coverage? Six weeks went by without a single word
from the networks, until the Johnny Chung allegations were published on
May 15. As President Clinton visited China at the end of June, the
networks stayed similarly silent.

• June 11, 1998: Bush Basher’s Reverse. Washington Post
reporter John Mintz revealed, "Months after denouncing President George
Bush in 1992 for coddling ‘familiar tyrants’ in Beijing,
newly-inaugurated President Clinton endorsed his predecessor’s policy
in 1993 by approving deals with China to launch U.S.-made satellites.
Clinton took the action, the first of many favored by U.S. companies,
despite evidence that China had sold ballistic missile parts to
Pakistan, declassified White House documents show."

Network coverage? Zero. The only network morning or evening mention of the satellite scandal in June came on NBC’s Today June 11. Claire Shipman did not touch on the Mintz story.

• June 13, 1998: New Communications Skills. New York Times
reporter Jeff Gerth found the conversion of supposedly civilian
technology for military uses: "For the past two years, China’s military
has relied on American-made satellites sold for civilian purposes to
transmit messages to its far-flung army garrisons, according to highly
classified intelligence reports. The reports are the most powerful
evidence to date that the American government knew that China’s army
was taking advantage of the Bush and Clinton administrations’ decisions
to encourage sales of technology to Asian companies."

Network coverage? Zero.

• June 15, 1998: Pakistan Proliferation. Washington Times
reporter Bill Gertz found White House documents showed that Clinton
loosened the Bush export-control policy by allowing a Nov. 1993
satellite launch while sanctions were in place for exporting missile
parts to Pakistan: "Congressional investigators said the document,
released last week by the White House, contradicts recent statements by
Clinton administration officials defending satellite export policies
and claiming they were following procedures set by the Bush
administration."

Network coverage? Zero.

• June 16, 1998: Helping Libya and Iran. Bill Gertz added more in the Washington Times: "China is discussing sales of missile test equipment to Iran and is helping Libya develop its own missile program, The Washington Times has learned....The reports contradict administration claims that Beijing has improved its record on weapons proliferation."

Network coverage? Zero.

• June 18, 1998: The General’s Son. Jeff Gerth reported in The New York Times
that the Clinton administration was rethinking its approval of one of
the largest satellite deals to that date: "Administration officials
said concerns about the pending satellite sale had been deepened by
American intelligence reports about Shen Rongjun, the Chinese Army
general who oversees his country’s military satellite programs. The
reports quote the general as saying he planned to emphasize the role of
satellites in gathering information."

Gerth added: "In an
unusual arrangement, Hughes Space and Communications hired General
Shen’s son, a dual citizen of Canada and China, to work on the project
as a manager. The company said it was aware of his familial ties; it is
not clear whether the Clinton administration knew. Father and son were
both directly involved in the project, and American officials said the
intelligence reports said the general was pressing his son to move it
forward."

Network coverage? Zero.

• June 24, 1998: The Missing Circuit Board. The New York Times
reported that China barred American monitors from a previous rocket
crash site: "When the Americans finally reached the area and opened the
battered but intact control box of the satellite, a supersecret encoded
circuit board was missing."

Network coverage? Zero.

All these stories were never factored into the network coverage of
Clinton’s June trip to China. Imagine if, just a couple of months after
the Iran-Contra affair broke, Ronald Reagan had planned a nine-day trip
to Iran, with the President featured at a historic joint news
conference with Ayatollah Khomeini. Then imagine if the networks
helpfully said nothing about Iran-Contra, and praised the President for
his "constructive engagement" toward a new "strategic partnership."
That’s what the networks did for President Clinton’s China trip.

3. China Acquires U.S. Warhead Technology

Then the newspapers began to piece together another story, of China
stealing the technology to miniaturize their nuclear warheads. Put the
two together — miniaturized nuclear warheads on improved ballistic
missiles — and you have an American security nightmare. So did the
networks leap at this horrendous security breach? No.

• March 6, 1999: Miniaturized Multiple Warheads. The New York Times
landed another shocking scoop: "Working with nuclear secrets stolen
from an American government laboratory, China has made a leap in the
development of nuclear weapons: the miniaturization of its bombs." The
Times emphasized: "The White House was told of the full extent of
China’s spying in the summer of 1997, on the eve of the first
U.S.-Chinese summit meeting in eight years — a meeting intended to
dramatize the success of President Clinton’s efforts to improve
relations with Beijing....a reconstruction by The New York Times
reveals that throughout the government, the response to the nuclear
theft was marked by delays, inaction and skepticism — even though
senior intelligence officials regarded it as one of the most damaging
spy cases in recent history."

Network coverage? In the first ten days of the story, the Big
Three aired only 11 evening stories. The morning shows were worse,
airing only six full news reports and one interview. As administration
spokesmen went uninterviewed and unchallenged by the morning shows,
ABC’s Good Morning America had time for a half-hour on weight loss. CBS’s This Morning
asked O.J. Simpson lawyer Johnnie Cochran about his upcoming appearance
on the CBS soap Guiding Light. Two networks urgently discussed the 40th
anniversary of the Barbie doll. When the networks did touch the story,
it came flattened by skepticism. Only NBC’s Today aired an
interview. On March 9, Katie Couric helped Energy Secretary Bill
Richardson make excuses: "Isn’t there a possibility that China could
have done this on its own?" Through May 13, this stands as the only
interview segment about espionage on any of the morning shows since the
New York Times broke the story. Since the first ten days, the Big Three have ignored several subsequent significant revelations:

• March 24, 1999: Hand the Spy a Better Job? New York Times
reporter James Risen revealed: "In spring 1997, Los Alamos National
Laboratory chose a scientist who was already under investigation as a
suspected spy for China to run a sensitive new nuclear weapons program,
several senior government officials say. The scientist, Wen Ho Lee,
asked that he be allowed to hire a research assistant, the officials
said. Once in the new position, in charge of updating computer software
for nuclear weapons, Lee hired a post-doctoral researcher who was a
citizen of China, intelligence and law-enforcement officials
said....the research assistant has disappeared."

Network coverage? Zero.

• March 29, 1999: "The Penetration is Total." Submerged across the bottom of two pages of the March 29 issue, Newsweek
correspondents John Barry and Gregory L. Vistica reported on a CIA
probe of the compromised nuclear labs. Top nuclear experts "practically
fainted" at how Chinese scientists routinely used U.S. lab phrases and
concepts. One official announced: "The penetration is total...they are
deep, deep into the labs’ black programs." They also learned "Beijing
recently got hold of two U.S. cruise missiles that failed to detonate
during last fall’s retaliatory attack on Osama bin Laden in
Afghanistan," and officials want to know if the Chinese are copying
that sophisticated technology.

Network coverage? Zero.

• March 31, 1999: Only Lee’s Wiretap Rejected. After several investigative news reports on the China connection by the Washington bureau of Investor’s Business Daily,
the newspaper’s lead editorial on March 31 revealed: "As part of the
probe, the [FBI] requested a wiretap on Lee. Justice denied it, arguing
it did not have sufficient grounds to take to a federal court to get
the tap approved. But a look at the Justice Department’s record on
wiretaps calls that argument into serious question. From 1993 to 1997,
federal officials requested 2,686 wiretaps. For all its concern for
probable cause and legal standards, the Justice Department turned down
one request in those four years — Lee’s in 1996."

Network coverage? Zero.

• April 8, 1999: New Neutron Theft. New York Times
reporters Jeff Gerth and James Risen began: "In early 1996, the United
States received a startling report from one of its Chinese spies.
Officials inside China’s intelligence service, the spy said, were
boasting that they had just stolen secrets from the United States and
had used them to improve Beijing’s neutron bomb, according to American
officials." After repeated administration claims that all
nuclear-weapons espionage happened in the mid-80s, the Times found espionage happening in 1995.

Network coverage? In a press conference that day with
visiting Chinese premier Zhu Rongji, both the AP and Reuters reporters
on hand asked about the Times charges. Still, the CBS Evening News
ignored the story, except for one vague reference by Bill Plante: "Did
China steal U.S. nuclear technology? Zhu Rongji said he didn’t know a
thing about it." ABC and NBC covered the subject, though NBC did not
give credit to the newspaper and concluded by stressing the White House
spin that "there’s no evidence China’s neutron bomb was improved as a
result."

The next morning, CBS’s This Morning ignored it. ABC’s Good Morning America gave the Times story two updates totaling 30 seconds, and NBC’s Today
awarded one 38-second brief. But NBC spent two minutes and 43 seconds
on beavers gnawing down cherry trees on Washington’s Tidal Basin.

• April 30: Communist China vs. Keystone Kops. The Washington Post
front page reported Congress "erupted" with criticism against the FBI
and the Justice Department. "After grilling FBI Director Louis J. Freeh
for nearly three hours in a closed-door hearing, members of the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence from both parties appeared equally
outraged at what they depicted as lax handling of past and present
investigations into suspected leaks of classified data. Their concern
was aroused in particular by Freeh’s testimony that the suspect, Wen Ho
Lee, had been cited for suspicious actions going back almost 20 years."

Network coverage? Zero.

• May 7, 1999: The Senate Reports. Washington Times
reporter Bill Gertz summarized a bipartisan congressional finding of
damage that was released later that day: "U.S. satellite technology
transferred to China in 1995 and 1996 has improved Beijing’s rockets
and missiles, according to a report to be released May 7 by the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence. The bipartisan committee report sets
out that the Chinese government is engaged in a covert operation aimed
at influencing U.S. policies. ‘Technical analyses and methodologies
provided by American satellite companies to the [People’s Republic of
China] during various satellite-launch campaigns result in the transfer
to the PRC of technical knowhow,’ the report says. ‘Such transfer
enables the PRC to improve its present and future space launch vehicles
and intercontinental ballistic missiles.’"

Network coverage? ABC, CBS, and NBC ignored it, although ABC’s World News Tonight aired a story on Wen Ho Lee’s claims of innocence.

• May 10, 1999: Scott-Free Peter Lee. New York Times
reporters Jeff Gerth and James Risen expanded the espionage story: "A
scientist working on a classified Pentagon project in 1997 provided
China with secrets about advanced radar technology being developed to
track submarines, according to court records and government documents.
Submarine detection technology is jealously guarded by the Pentagon
because the Navy’s ability to conceal submarines is a crucial military
advantage."

The reporters added context: "The information
about the radar technology, which is considered promising and has been
in development for two decades, was divulged to Chinese nuclear-weapons
experts during a two-hour lecture in Beijing in May 1997 by Peter Lee,
an American scientist, court records show....Despite the failure to
prosecute Lee over the radar technology [due to Navy and Justice
Department objections], the case shows that the scope of Chinese
espionage is broader than the assertions of nuclear thefts at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory....The Peter Lee case is also significant
because it clearly demonstrates that the American government believed
that China was successfully engaged in espionage — obtaining American
defense secrets — during President Clinton’s second term."

Network coverage? Zero.

4. Clinton's Denials Exposed

When he was forced to respond to press conference inquiries about
the newspaper scoops on Chinese espionage, Clinton denied any knowledge
that espionage occurred on his watch. At a March 19 press conference,
Clinton said: "Can I tell you there has been no espionage at the labs
since I’ve been President? I can tell you that no one has reported to
me that they suspect such a thing has occurred." He repeated later in
the same news conference: "To the best of my knowledge, no one has said
anything to me about any espionage which occurred by the Chinese
against the labs, during my presidency."

On April 8, the day The New York Times reported the
theft of neutron bomb secrets in 1995, Clinton met the press with
Chinese premier Zhu Rongji and again denied knowledge of recent
espionage: "You know, China is a big country with a big government and
I can only say that America is a big country with a big government and
occasionally things happen in this government that I don’t know about.
And so I think it’s important that we continue the investigation and do
our best to find out what happened and I asked for his cooperation."
That night, ABC and NBC ran clips of Clinton’s March 19 denial, but
then failed to follow up when his denials became more obviously hollow.

• April 28: "Huge Amounts" Improperly Transferred. The New York Times
reported "A scientist suspected of spying for China improperly
transferred huge amounts of secret data from a computer system at a
government laboratory, compromising virtually every nuclear weapon in
the United States arsenal, government and lab officials say. The data —
millions of lines of computer code that approximate how this country’s
atomic warheads work — were downloaded from a computer system at the
Los Alamos, N.M., weapons lab that is open only to those with top-level
security clearances, according to the officials. The scientist, Wen Ho
Lee, then transferred the files to a widely accessible computer network
at the lab, where they were stored under other file names, the
officials said. The Taiwan-born scientist transferred most of the
secret data in 1994 and 1995, officials said."

Network coverage? Nothing on the ABC and CBS morning shows while NBC’s Today gave it 15 seconds. ABC’s World News Tonight aired a full story. CBS Evening News mentioned it before its own exclusive report on lax nuclear lab security. NBC Nightly News
referred to it in one sentence in a story broadcast nearly two weeks
later, on May 11. But none of the network reports pointed out how the
story undermined Clinton’s claim there was no espionage during his
administration.

• May 2, 1999: What Did They Know and When Did They Know It? The New York Times
added new details about how and when the Clinton team learned about
ongoing espionage last year: "A secret report to top Clinton
administration officials last November warned that China posed an
‘acute intelligence threat’ to the government’s nuclear weapons
laboratories and that computer systems at the labs were being
constantly penetrated by outsiders. Yet investigators waited until
March to search the computer of a scientist at Los Alamos National
Laboratory who had been under investigation for nearly three years,
suspected of spying for China. And it was not until April that the
Energy Department shut down its classified computer systems to impose
tighter security over their data. Meanwhile, in February, the
scientist, Wen Ho Lee, tried to delete evidence that he had improperly
transferred more than 1,000 files containing nuclear secrets, officials
said. The classified report contains numerous warnings and specific
examples showing that outsiders had gained access to the computer
systems at United States weapons labs as recently as June 1998."

Network coverage? Only ABC’s World News Tonight noted it, for 40 seconds, but failed to say a word about how it contradicted Clinton’s denials.

• May 9: Richardson Admits Clinton-Era Espionage. On NBC’s Meet the Press,
moderator Tim Russert prodded Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to admit
that contrary to Clinton’s press-conference claims, espionage did take
place in the Clinton years: "In November of ‘98, you received, the
President received a report saying exactly something contrary. Senator
Kerrey, Senator Shelby of the Intelligence Committee said they were
aware and the President was aware. Why would he tell the American
people in March that he wasn’t aware?" Richardson:
"Tim, what the President was referring to — and I was with him — he was
referring to [how] this individual had not been charged with
espionage." Russert: "That’s not what he said. It’s not what he said, Mr. Richardson." Richardson: "The President has been fully, fully briefed. The President has been..."Russert:
"He said, ‘Can I tell you that there’s no espionage at the lab since
I’ve been President? I can tell you that no one has reported to me they
suspect such a thing. To the best of my knowledge, no one has said
anything to me about espionage.’" Richardson: "Tim, it was the President..." Russert: "...which occurred by the Chinese against the labs during my presidency." Richardson:
"Tim, it was the President that vigorously pushed for a decision
memorandum, a PDD, in February. He set dramatic counter-intelligence
measures at the labs. We moved ahead a month later and hired Mr.
Curran, the best counter-intelligence person." Russert: "But let’s clear up the record."Richardson: "And when I came in, Tim, we have taken dramatic steps." Russert:
"Right. Let’s clear up the record. Let’s clear up the record. Did, in
fact, espionage occur by the Chinese against the nuclear labs during
the Clinton presidency?" Richardson: "Tim, this is what’s happened."Russert: "It’s a simple question." Richardson: "No, no, no, this is what happened." Russert: "Was there Chinese espionage..." Richardson: "There has been damaging security leaks, number one."Russert: "...during the Clinton administration?" Richardson:
"The Chinese did get W-88 information that is damaging. It started in
the ‘80s, it’s gone into the ‘90s. The Chinese have obtained damaging
information. We are..." Russert: "During the Clinton presidency?" Richardson: "We are addressing the problem." Russert: "During the Clinton presidency?" Richardson: "During past administrations and present administrations." Russert: "Finally, someone has acknowledged it."

Network coverage? Despite this heated exchange, NBC and
the other networks failed to report Richardson’s admission on their
morning or evening shows, even though it made the front page in the
next day’s Washington Times, and even The Boston Globe.

Contrast: Network Coverage of GOP Foreign-Policy Scandals

If the networks don’t trust congressional probes into foreign-policy
scandals, as they have downplayed and dismissed the findings of House
and Senate hearings into the China connection, then they ought to be
devoting more resources and air time to investigating the charges for
themselves. Clearly they did that in Republican administrations:

Iran-Contra. Network crusaders condemned the Reagan
administration for sending TOW missiles to Iran in exchange for
American hostages the networks had made famous. On the January 25, 1988
CBS Evening News, Dan Rather famously yelled at Vice President
George Bush about selling arms for hostages to Iran: "You’ve made us
hypocrites in the face of the world! How could you sign on to such a
policy?" But when Rather secured the first exclusive post-impeachment
TV interview with Bill Clinton, aired on the March 31 edition of 60 Minutes II, he asked nothing about fresh stories of Chinese espionage at U.S. nuclear labs.

David Frum compared that to the current China scandal in the June 8, 1998 Weekly Standard:
"The essence of the Iran-Contra scandal was the charge that the Reagan
administration had sold weapons to an unfriendly regime to raise money
for illegal purposes. It now looks disturbingly plausible that the
Clinton administration has over the past six years been engaged in
something very similar: authorizing the sale of advanced military
technology to China in exchange for dubious domestic and illegal
foreign campaign contributions. The Reaganites, though, could at least
offer this defense: However misguided, or even foolish their project
was, it did not put the national security of the United States at
risk." The TOW missiles were destined to blow up Saddam Hussein’s
armies.

By contrast, as Frum pointed out, the Clinton
administration has allowed China to acquire technology —
"super-computers to simulate nuclear tests, satellite technology that
might help aim ballistic missiles more accurately — that could easily
be used against the United States and its allies."

Video of a Bias Contrast:
Iran-Contra a Scandal, But Not Chinagate. Watch via RealPlayer how Dan
Rather attacked George Bush in 1988 over Iran-Contra but turned
deferential this year, avoiding Chinese espionage and donations.

Iraqgate. Throughout 1992, the networks (especially ABC’s Nightline and NBC’s Dateline)
devoted massive resources to investigating the since-refuted charge
that the Bush administration armed the Iraqis before they faced
American forces in the Gulf War. On October 28, 1992, Nightline
host Ted Koppel declared that 18 months of ABC searching had revealed a
series of "legal and illegal technology transfers" to Iraq, and
presented a poll suggesting most Americans didn’t believe George Bush’s
explanations. Two days before the election, CBS’s 60 Minutes
featured Democratic partisan Henry Gonzalez charging Bush was guilty of
obstruction of justice and "principally responsible for arming Saddam
Hussein." (In his November 1994 American Lawyer expose of
Iraqgate coverage, journalist Stuart Taylor called the CBS piece "a
20-minute tag team number on the Bush administration littered with
distortions.") Mike Wallace’s first question: "Who are the main players
who have tried to stop your investigation?"

Today, the
networks have feigned no interest in the increasing evidence of Chinese
espionage, or in those who would attempt to sidetrack investigating
reporters or politicians, even as House Republicans and Democrats alike
have agreed on the harm it’s caused American national security. When
the subject comes up at all, it’s dismissed as a partisan plaything.
ABC reporter Linda Douglass suggested on the March 18 World News Tonight:
"Republicans...believe they’ve finally found an issue that will stick
to the President...The charge that Mr. Clinton is soft on China is red
meat for conservatives." Why isn’t an increased Chinese nuclear-weapons
capability of interest to all Americans?

Conclusion: How to Cover Foreign Policy Fairly

If the networks desire to present the fullest and fairest portrait
of all America’s foreign-policy imbroglios, it wouldn’t have to simply
compare the Clinton administration to the Reagan or Bush
administrations. It could compare them to the Clinton campaign
manifesto from 1992, Putting People First. On pages 133-139, the following promises were made:

• "Preserve the attributes that have made the American military the
best in the world: the outstanding quality of our personnel and the
overwhelming superiority of our technology...

• "Get tough with countries and companies that sell these [missile]
technologies and work with all countries for tough, enforceable,
international nonproliferation agreements...

• "Condition favorable trade terms with repressive regimes — such as
China’s Communist regime — on respect for human rights, political
liberalization, and responsible international conduct."

Political observers expect partisans to be partisan, whether they’re
Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. But they don’t expect
the networks, which claim to be objective, to choose which scandal to
cover based on whose ox is gored. If the networks see their role as
holding accountable all branches and all administrations of the
government, then their coverage ought to better represent a single
strategic standard. If the network pundits can deplore the partisan
back-tracking when Republicans chat up peace plans with dictators and
deplore NATO adventurism, and Democrats no longer see the need for a
War Powers Act to restrain the President’s powers, shouldn’t they first
consider their own partisan track record on investigating and reporting
foreign-policy scandals and counter-intelligence failures?

Federal employees and military personnel can donate to the Media Research Center through the Combined Federal Campaign or CFC. To donate to the MRC, use CFC #12489. Visit the CFC website for more information about giving opportunities in your workplace.